Houston Phonics Study: A Response to Criticism

I read with interest, albeit disappointment, the letter from Gerald
Coles concerning the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development-supported study of reading development in Houston, directed
by Barbara Foorman ("Phonics
Findings Discounted as Part of Flawed Research,"Letters, April
2, 1997). As the chief of the NICHD branch that developed the
overarching scientific framework for the network of eight
reading-development and -intervention studies, of which the Houston
study is one (the other sites are Tallahassee, Fla.; Boulder, Colo.;
Albany, N.Y.; Winston-Salem, N.C.; Seattle; Atlanta; Boston; and
Toronto, Canada), I feel it necessary to provide information to Mr.
Coles and your readers that could address his concerns.

Mr. Coles apparently believes that Ms. Foorman's study investigating
the effects of literature-based instruction, embedded (contextualized)
phonics instruction, and a combined teaching approach (instruction in
phonological awareness, phonics, and textual reading) found that all
groups performed equally well (on average) in the area of reading
comprehension. This is an incorrect interpretation of the findings. Ms.
Foorman's study found that youngsters receiving direct instruction in
the alphabetic code as well as text comprehension in literature-based
contexts had significantly greater reading comprehension than children
in the literature-based-only groups when assessed by a measure reported
to have excellent construct validity by the National Academy of
Sciences.

The groups did not differ significantly on a second and more complex
measure of reading comprehension that required the child to respond to
multiple-choice questions following the reading of each of two
passages. Unfortunately, the lack of differences between the groups on
this measure was not because all children did well. In fact, the null
findings were because the measure was too difficult for all children,
resulting in floor effects and a predictable lack of difference.

Mr. Coles is also concerned that the training and monitoring of the
literature-based teachers was not "objective" and could have been
influenced negatively by Ms. Foorman's earlier reading research, which
found that whole-language approaches were not the best method for
children who did not learn to decode and recognize words in an accurate
and fluent fashion. This is also an incorrect observation. Ms. Foorman
had no direct role in the training of teachers for each condition. The
teachers taking part in the literature-based reading condition were all
experienced whole-language teachers from a district judged by language
arts coordinators in Texas to be a model of implementation for
whole-language instruction. The reading professionals who provided 30
hours of training and who monitored the quality of the literature-based
instruction held doctoral and master's degrees in reading with
specializations in literature-based instruction.

It is also important to note that the children in the
literature-based groups were taught and assessed according to
whole-language philosophy and principles. The teachers were expected to
use the principles and tools of the literature-based approach in an
expert manner and were monitored for that purpose. Portfolio
assessments were carried out frequently during the year, as were
continuous observations of oral reading of predictable texts.
Instructional modifications were made on the basis of information
derived from these activities.

The explanations offered by Mr. Coles--that the literature-based
teachers failed the children because of insufficient monitoring or
because of a fear of contaminating the study--are inaccurate. These
teachers did everything reasonably possible within the context of their
training and teaching philosophy to develop reading skills in the
youngsters they were instructing. I suppose the safest interpretation
of the poor reading performance of the whole-language-instructed
children at the end of the year suggests that assessment, observation,
and reapplication procedures advocated by literature-based teachers may
not lead to robust reading skills for many economically disadvantaged
children.

For Mr. Coles, teacher inadequacy, rather than holistic instruction,
appears to serve as an interpretation for the ineffectiveness of
literature-based instruction for economically disadvantaged,
low-achieving 1st and 2nd graders. I am in complete agreement with him
that we must ensure that literature-based instruction, as with all
types of instruction, is applied competently in any study of reading
development and difficulties.

But surprisingly, this issue of limited competence in the delivery
of literature-based instruction by poorly prepared whole-language
teachers has been persistently and now predictably raised by advocates
of holistic reading methods in California, Texas, and many other states
where reading is taught predominantly by whole-language teachers and
where reading scores are of great concern to legislative authorities
because of unacceptably high failure rates. It is surprising because
the professors of education in these states feel that they are doing a
splendid job of preparing teachers to impart literature-based reading
instruction. Moreover, many of them are considered leaders in the study
and application of literature-based instruction, and many have trained
hundreds, if not thousands of teachers in those states where holistic
reading instruction is prevalent and where declining reading scores
have become an issue of widespread concern and anguish.

One alternate possibility, vis-…-vis teacher knowledge and
competence, that could account for the failure of the whole-language
approach to enhance reading-skill development in the Houston study is
that many college of education professors may themselves not be fully
prepared in their understanding of reading development and reading
disorders, and that the information passed on to their students is
equally limited and fragmentary in theory, content, and application. In
short, the conventional wisdom imparted to whole-language teachers
during their preparation may not be very wise and is sadly
conventional. While this may seem to be a harsh interpretation, our
studies of teacher-preparation practices indicate that it is
accurate.

Elementary teachers report with alarming frequency that they have
not been prepared to adequately teach reading; that many have only had,
at most, two reading courses throughout their reading careers; that
theory is never directly related to teaching practice with children and
demonstrated explicitly by professors; that student-teaching and
practicum experiences are rarely thoughtfully integrated with college
coursework; that they have never observed a professor model and
demonstrate teaching approaches with children of differing abilities in
laboratory or classroom settings; and that their knowledge of
individual differences in children is limited. Thus, any of the
teachers that Mr. Coles assumes are well trained may not be by
objective standards.

As someone who received training in education and has taught
youngsters in the 3rd grade as well as children with learning
disabilities, I know firsthand the limitations of educational
preparation programs at one university. And I know through my own
studies of teacher preparation how dismal teacher preparation is at
many other institutions.

I take exception to Mr. Coles' statement that Ms. Foorman's study
reflects "a 'garden variety' investigation commonly found in
professional journals.'' In fact, research conducted under the auspices
of the National Institutes of Health in general, and the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development in this particular
case, must meet the highest levels of scientific integrity, review, and
application. All NICHD-supported researchers engaged in
reading-intervention research have submitted a proposal for their study
that must pass two levels of extensive review by highly accomplished
scientists--scientists who, by law, cannot be affiliated with the
research team they are evaluating.

Yes, the science supported by the NIH adheres to traditional
scientific standards: The work must be theoretically guided. If
multiple theories of a phenomenon exist (as in reading development and
disorders), there should be a robust test of these competing theories.
The theories must drive the hypotheses to be tested. The measurements
used to test the hypotheses must meet established standards of
reliability and validity. The study must be designed to account for
alternative explanations of the data. The study, and those conducted to
replicate the findings, must attempt to falsify the hypotheses and
refute the theories that guide the investigation.

In addition, the NICHD reading-intervention studies must investigate
reading development and disorders within a longitudinal perspective
that begins with children before they enter the 1st grade and follows
them for at least five years. A longitudinal design is employed because
we are aware that different types of reading skills are more important
at different stages of reading development. We also are aware that
children may respond to different types of instruction at different
points in the developmental reading process, and that different reading
approaches may be more efficacious at different points as well. As
such, the early findings obtained in Ms. Foorman's study will continue
to be evaluated in terms of subsequent findings, and formal published
reports of these reading-skill interactions will be provided.

While I feel that Mr. Coles' concerns about the Houston study are
part of a scientific dialogue, I wonder why he and other advocates of
literature-based instruction have not contacted Barbara Foorman, her
colleagues, or myself to discuss their concerns. It will be through
this type of collegial interaction that our attempts at building the
most informed scientific understanding of reading development and
difficulties will be most fully realized. As researchers, we have a lot
to learn about how best to study reading development and what we can do
about reading difficulties. Let's get on with it--the children are
depending on us.

G. Reid LyonNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development
National Institutes of HealthBethesda, Md.